The problem for atheists, is that their faith is diametrically opposed to Christian faith, as well as Jewish faith, etc. They have a disposition to replace God with mortal gods, often indulging in left-wing ideology, which explains why atheists often run amuck. The safe alternative to theism is agnosticism, not atheism. It is irrational and unproductive to make affirmative statements about universal phenomenon, let alone extra-universal phenomenon, both which exist outside the scientific domain.

Because Marxism is at its core a drive for coercive, totalitarian power, it opposes competing centers of social and political influence.

I'm reminded of the saying about environmentalists: they're like watermelons... you don't have to scratch away very much green until you hit red.

I'm allowing for the possibility that some militant atheists are merely exhibitionists who see a chance for moral grandstanding because they perceive they have the cultural zeitgeist in their favor. These folks are like the ones who will kick your car windows out if they see you dog inside, even though you have only been away from the vehicle for a moment.

The issue is not necessarily atheism, since people of various faiths will indulge in narcissism. The issue, as when Jews once abandoned God, in favor of material fulfillment, is an unbridled human ego. This is promoted by universalist ideologies and centralized planning schemes.

It's not a coincidence that atheism is characteristic of left-wing regimes; but, it is also not a coincidence that Catholics have on occasion ran amuck. Islam is a special case, in that it is a universalist church, that directs its followers to convert or subdue people through any means necessary.

That said, these are all competing interests. It is in their interest to marginalize the competition, which in America is principally Protestant Christians. So, they mock a competing faith, while failing to acknowledge their own. They adopt a perverse religion (i.e. moral philosophy), while simultaneously criticizing other religions. They use the state to establish a church (i.e. organized faith and religion), while litigating and shaming others from doing the same.

Anyway, it's a choice. Judge the value of the faith and religion by the principles they engender. Enjoy the traditions when they do not violate the principles, and especially when they promote them.

p.s. Looks like "Flight 1140" is a regular route rather than a specific flight. So no contradiction in the story.

For me it's still anonymous hearsay. But if feeling good about real or imagined grumpy people getting their due punishment is your goal, the NY Post delivers. Who doesn't want to hear about ungrateful people getting what they deserve?

For me the more interesting "Christmas carol" story is redemption of the cold heart, but revenge works too I guess. You never know what good you can do by standing up to people who are asking for it. We'll just pretend the ghosts came to him in the night and straighted him out.

It does remind me of the Three sieves of Socrates, not that Newspapers would last more than 2 weeks on this cautious advice.http://www.rabbiweisz.com/divrei-torah/dvarim/socrates-three-filters-test-and-the-three-weeks/1. Is it true?2. Is it good?3. Is it necessary?

If its a morality play, explaining why we should be kind not not rude, then perhaps we can pass test 2, even if it is a fabrication?

The question of necessity always annoyed me because technically almost no communication short of "Stop" upon imminent danger is strictly necessary.

So I'm willing to surrender test 3, and I'm willing to surrender test 1, on the condition the story begins with "Once upon a time..." and then we can do all our morality tales in sincere earnestness, and no one will bother fact checking before they decide if we'd never do anything so rude.

But still the story might be mostly true, and not doctored up like the fish that got away.

Still, it is curious such a short article has three authors.

I'm always curious, but really I guess I don't want to be manipulated in my feelings, so that explains my caution.

Really I see I dislike speculations that he was an declared atheist, militant or whatever, not because I am one, or because he's not, but because the suggestion suggests atheists are people who are disrespectful, and by impication will earned whatever spite or malice we occassionally feel when we need a scapegoat and don't have our own self control in order.